Filibuster, kill it or change it?

re:

by douglaslee

May. 16, 2012 3:06 am

The modify "they must maintain a physical presence" failed because republicans only had to keep a physical presence of the senator that had the floor and his relief team. The Democrats had to maintaina physical presence of all 55 senators.

To kill it means the results of the majority will be judged by the people that elected them. The filibuster inreality is a no faith vote for the the American people. Which just happens to be the republican core principle, they must be lead by the chosen.

Comments

re: Filibuster, kill it or change it?

by Sprinklerfitter

May. 16, 2012 3:58 am

Harry Reid should have changed the rules when Obama was elected to a simple majority. He knows what kind of POS turtle face and his minions are. Just look at what the contards are trying to go back on right now that they agreed to earlier during the debt ceiling talk mess they created. From the start Reid should have treated the retardlicons like the trash they are. I wonder where this country could have been without the record amount of obstructions the cons have used the past 3 plus years?

re: Filibuster, kill it or change it?

by antikakistocrat

May. 16, 2012 8:39 am

Okay a little education here about the fillibuster rule.

The fillibuster rule was put in place so that minority parties and individuals could have their say cuz the founding fathers worried about having a system in which the minority can still have a voice without fear of any backlash.

However since the fillibuster was being used in the late 1800s to hold up critical civil rights legislation there was a cloture-rule put into place. What this means is that if 60 out of the 100 Senators want to vote on an issue they first vote on cloture, which means they limit the time a Senator has to be either for or against an issue before going onto the next Senator. Once every Senator has had their say they then go and vote on the issue. If less than 60 votes is achieved for cloture then Senators can continue the fillibuster. In the House of Reps it is 60% meaning 261 votes must be cast in order to attain cloture.

re: Filibuster, kill it or change it?

by Art

May. 16, 2012 9:25 am

Certainly, everybody on this board understand what the filibuster is and how it came about and what it is for. The topic is about whether it should be changed so that it doesn't render the Government ineffectual.

As I see it, the filibuster rule did change to make the Government ineffectual. Back when the filibuster was a real filibuster, it served well to ensure that the minority opinion-holders were given a little extra opportunity to argue their case. The odds were still that the majority opinion would carry the day. The rule was changed in such a way that the filibuster could be used to ensure that the minority opinion-holders would get their way. The process was changed to completely subvert the original purpose of the filibuster. The end result of the process was 100% reversed. I think that all that is needed is to return to the original filibuster rules.

re: Filibuster, kill it or change it?

Anonymous hold is another bit of rubbish. The fiflibuster was never in the constitution, rule making is.

The number of votes can be apportioned by population. Private companies do it, with class a stockholders getting 10 votes for every 1 vote of class b share holders. TX, CA, and NY would get 20 votes each, NE, WY, SD, and the other 5 would get 2 votes each.

There are more people in prison than are in Nebraska. High fructose corn syrup is changing the country, if not running it.

Add it up, and more than half of all Americans live in eight states. The big ones. The important ones. How many live in the eight least populated states? Less than 3 percent. Three percent — also known as the margin of error. (Which raises a terrifying scenario: It’s possible these states are completely empty.)

Yet what concerned me during my soul-deadening voyage toward Omaha was not whether these states deserve their claim on so much territory (they don’t), or whether, as guaranteed by Article I, they should be represented by two senators as powerful as the senators in states where people actually live (they shouldn’t).

re: Filibuster, kill it or change it?

by Pierpont

May. 21, 2012 8:28 pm

The Senate is fatally flawed body where now a mere 18% of the US population gets about 52% of the seats. Worst, the Constitution makes it virtually impossible to reform the Senate. The filibuster may have become a Senate rule to give the appearance that Senators representing a minority of the population could not "govern". But the filibuster is just an anti-democratic evil atop and anti-democratic institution that permits Senators representing even smaller percentages of the US population to block legislation.

Since the Senate is unlikely to ever be reformed by amendment, the only "EASY" way to fix the Senate is thru Senate rules… to weigh each Senator's votes so they have the weight of 1/2 of their state's population... or by those who actually voted for them last election. The votes can then be added up... and Senators that represent more than 50% of the US population prevail. I say "easy" but that will never happen unless the big states say they've had enough with this anti-democratic arrangement.

(Please don't give me any 4th grade US history lessons about the purpose of the Senate. I know fully well its purpose and have no use for the concept of state suffrage. It's behind every anti-democratic formula in the Constitution from the Senate and the EC to the amendment process. That's now led to the absurd situation that a mere 5% of the US population can block any amendment… or that states with less than 40% of the population can ratify any amendment. Gee… if Thom is so dedicated to "democracy" as he claims… why isn't this an issue?)